I denna långa artikeln visar Christopher Walter Monckton tydligt hur det inte finns någon global uppvärmningskris och hur vi inte är inne i någon global uppvärmning. Falska lösningar ges till ett problem som inte existerar och riktiga miljöproblem ignoreras medans den globala makteliten sätter upp deras världsregering.
Under världsregeringen som köpenhamnsavtalet sätter upp så är det enligt eliten människorna på jorden som är orsaken till ett problem som inte existerar. Populationskontroll är därför nödvändigt för att förhindra detta ”problemet”. Det riktiga problemet är den moderna rashygien och eliten själva, eliten använder sig av denna klimatbluffen för att få människor att acceptera massmord i den tredje världen och att deras utveckling måste stoppas.
Romklubben där bland annat Al gore och David rockefeller är medlemmar skrev 1991 följande:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – The Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution (1991) by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider.
1995 när IPCC:s egna forskare sedan i AR2 bl a hade dessa formuleringar…
”None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
”No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
”Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
…Så togs de bort utan vidare och istället skrev man i AR2:s summary följande:
”the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate.”
Detta beskrev Princeton-fysikern Frederick Seitz (f d ordförande i National Academy of Sciences samt American Physical Society) 1996 i Wall Street Journal, med orden: ”I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report”. Kort därefter lanserade IPCC bluffen ”hockeyklubbsgrafen”.
The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) släpptes år 2007 och låg till grund för Bali konferensen. Till grund för rapporten ligger rapporterna från IPCC:s 3 “working groups”. Working Group 1 (WG1) “is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections”. Deras rapport kallas “The Physical Science Basis”. Denna grupp är av fundamental betydelse då det är denna grupp som tar fram det vetenskapliga data som ligger till grund för senare analyser och kommentarer.Working Group 2 och 3, vars rapporter bygger på det data som Working Group 1 har tagit fram, heter “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” och “Mitigation of Climate Change”.
Av de 2 500 vetenskapsmän som deltog i denna process så var det bara 600 som var involverade i den viktiga working group 1. Resterande 1 900 ägnade sig bara åt WG2 och WG3 och fick inte framföra några synpunkter på WG1 material eller data. Dvs. av dessa 2 500 vetenskapsmän så har redan 76 % (1 900 st.) “försvunnit” då de inte haft med saken (WG 1) att göra. Nå, av alla dessa 600 vetenskapsmän, (som finns listade i Annex III till rapporten så att man skall tro att ALLA har medverkat), hur många deltog FAKTISKT i detta arbete?.
Om man tittar på den sista utkast som gås igenom innan publiceringen, (som kallas “The Second Order Revision” eller SOR), så deltog 308 st. vetenskapsmän i denna del. Dvs. av dessa 600 vetenskapsmän så har redan 49 % (292 st.) “försvunnit” då de inte haft med det sista utkastet att göra. Av dessa 308 vetenskapsmän som kom med kommentarer till det sista utkastet så var det bara 32 st. som kommenterade 4 eller flera kapitel av utkastet (rapporten består av 11 kapitel). Dvs. av dessa 308 vetenskapsmän så har redan 90 % (276 st.) “försvunnit” då de inte haft med mer än ett eller två kapitel att göra.
Bara 5, säg 5 vetenskapsmän kommenterade alla 11 kapitlen. Dvs. av dessa ursprungliga 2 500 vetenskapsmän så har 99,8 % (2 495 st.) “försvunnit” då de inte haft med saken (WG 1) att göra eller inte kommenterat hela rapporten. Är det inte otroligt att av dessa 2 500 vetenskapsmän som IPCC och Al Gore gör ett så stort nummer av att det råder TOTAL enighet bland vetenskapsmännen så ÅTERSTÅR FAKTISKT BARA 5 stycken som har varit med och påverkat hela rapporten (WG 1)!.
Och som om detta inte vore tillräckligt skandalöst så måste dessa vetenskapsmäns kommentarer GODKÄNNAS av IPCC: s egna “editors”. I kapitel 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change). Där bl.a. det famösa påståendet “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”. finns. Och som utgör den egentliga grunden för hela Global Warming Hysterin lämnade 62 st. vetenskapsmän (varav 8 st. från regeringar) kommentarer. Av dessa blev nästan 60 % avslagna för att dom inte gav stöd till IPCC. IPCC kräver även att de 11 “vetenskapliga” kapitlen SKALL ÖVERENSSTÄMMA med Summary for Policymakers. Så dessa vetenskapliga kapitel MÅSTE VÄNTA tills Summary for Policymakers är publicerad INNAN de får publiceras. Dvs. politiken bestäms först sedan får vetenskapen anpassa sig till detta.
Här är en av Christopher Walter Monckton lysande artiklar som visar varför det inte finns någon global kris:
THE FACT of warming tells us nothing of the cause. Yet the scientific consensus is that, though the rapid climatic warming from 1906 to 1940 was a natural recovery from the historically low temperatures of the Little Ice Age, it is we who are chiefly to blame for the equally rapid warming from 1975 to the present. Since some climatologists challenge this consensus, can we settle the debate by predicting with models and then detecting by observation a characteristic “signature” in the climate data that allows us definitively to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming of the Earth’s atmosphere? This paper answers that key question.
To identify the distinctive signature of anthropogenic warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, we begin with a little elementary atmospheric physics.
The surface of the Earth does not cool primarily by thermal radiation. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, generally maximizes at the surface in the tropics and sharply decreases with both altitude and latitude. There is so much greenhouse opacity immediately above the ground that the surface cannot effectively cool by the emission of thermal radiation.
Instead, heat is carried away from the surface by fluid motions ranging from the cumulonimbus towers of the tropics to the weather and planetary scale waves of the extratropics. These motions carry the heat upward and poleward to the “characteristic emission level” one optical depth into the atmosphere, known as τ=1. From here emitted thermal radiation can escape to space. Crudely speaking, the emitted thermal radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature at the characteristic emission level.
In the diagram, lighter shading represents reduced opacity as water-vapor density diminishes with altitude. Largely because of the motions of the atmosphere, the temperature decreases with altitude to a level known as the tropopause. The height of the tropopause varies with latitude. In the tropics it is about 16 km, dropping to about 12 km near 30 degrees latitude, and 8 km near the poles. Beneath the tropopause, we have the troposphere.
How the greenhouse effect changes global temperature
τ is infrared absorption measured from the top of the atmosphere looking down. Diagram (a): When the earth is in radiative balance with space, net incoming solar radiation (NISR) is balanced by outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from the characteristic emission level, τ=1. Diagram (b): When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, the characteristic emission level is raised in altitude. Since atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude at about 10 ºC per mile, the new characteristic emission level is colder than the previous level. Therefore outgoing longwave radiation no longer balances net incoming solar radiation. The Earth is no longer in thermal balance with space. This imbalance is called “radiative forcing”. To re-establish balance, the temperature at the new τ=1 level must increase to about the temperature that had existed at the initial τ=1 level, which is typically 7-8 km in the tropics and lower elsewhere. The warming at τ=1 is the fundamental warming associated with the greenhouse effect. How warming at the characteristic emission level τ=1 relates to warming at the surface is not altogether clear, but computer models can be helpful here. Source: Lindzen (2007).
Computer models are able to assist us in distinguishing between the warming caused by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and warming that is attributable to other causes.
The UN, in its 2007 climate assessment report, displays a series of plots of predicted rates of temperature change over the decades at altitudes from the Earth’s surface to 30 km, at latitudes from the South Pole via the Equator to the North Pole. Colors are used to illustrate the rates of change in temperature which the UN’s climate models predict, measured in degrees Celsius per decade. Each distinct cause of warming produces a visibly-distinct plot.
Six causes of atmospheric warming are considered. First, plots of natural warming caused by changes in total incoming solar radiation and changes in volcanic activity are shown, followed by plots of anthropogenic warming caused by emissions of greenhouse gases, changes in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone concentration, and the radiative forcing caused by sulphate aerosol particles (which actually cause cooling). Finally, the five plots of predicted warming are combined to create a single, sixth plot.
It is at once visible that the predicted warming caused by greenhouse-gas concentrations produces a pattern strongly distinct from other causes of warming. A “hot spot” appears between 8km and 12km of altitude in or near the tropics. At this computer-predicted “hot spot” high above the Earth, the UN’s models project that greenhouse warming will cause temperature to rise over the decades at a rate up to three times faster than at the surface.
Greenhouse warming is distinguishable from other forcings
hPa – Left hand side
km – Right hand side
Zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change (ºC per century, 1890-1999), from two natural causes, three anthropogenic causes and one combined cause, simulated by the UN’s PCM model. The “hot-spot” signature of greenhouse warming is visible in (c) and (f). (IPCC, 2007, p. 675, based on Santer et al, 2003. See also IPCC, 2007, Appendix 9C).
The UN’s diagram shows the pattern of zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999, in °C per century from six causes –
(a) natural radiative forcing from changes in solar activity;
(b) natural radiative forcing from changes in volcanic activity;
(c) anthropogenic radiative forcing from emissions of CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases;
(d) anthropogenic radiative forcing from changes in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone;
(e) anthropogenic radiative forcing from pollutant sulphate aerosol particles emitted to the atmosphere; and
(f) all natural and anthropogenic forcings combined.
These six plots, from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa barometric pressure (left scale), equivalent to 0-30 km (right scale), demonstrate that anthropogenic emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases, whether on its own (c) or combined with all other natural and anthropogenic forcings (f), is predicted to produce a signature distinct from that of other forcings alone. The reason why the combined-forcings plot (f) appears so similar to the greenhouse-gas forcing plot (c) is that the UN’s computer models predict that the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on temperature is greater than that of all other forcings.
This instantly-recognizable “hot-spot” on the altitude-versus-latitude plot of predicted rates of temperature change is the unmistakable signature or characteristic fingerprint of greenhouse warming which we have been looking for. The warming which the computer models predict will arise from growing emissions of greenhouse gases is visibly distinct in its magnitude and in its altitudinal and latitudinal distribution from any other cause of natural or anthropogenic warming.
Following common meteorological practice, height is represented in these plots by atmospheric pressure level. Atmospheric pressure decreases approximately exponentially with height: 100 millibars corresponds roughly to 16 km; 200 mb to 12 km; 500 mb to 6 km; and 1000 mb to the surface. Predicted greenhouse-gas warming visibly peaks strongly in the tropical troposphere near the τ=1 characteristic emission level, which differs from one computer model another because the amount of water vapor differs among the models.
Within the tropical “hot-spot” at about 8 to 12 km altitude, the rate of increase in warming is more than twice and up to three times the rate of increase in warming at the Earth’s surface. This does not mean that absolute temperature in the mid-troposphere is greater than at the surface. Far from it: the temperature at altitude is very much colder than at the surface. But the rate at which temperature is predicted to increase in the “hot-spot” over the decades is two or three times the rate at which temperature is predicted to increase at the surface.
To put it another way, if we observe warming in the tropical upper troposphere, then the models predict that the contribution to warming at the surface that is caused by our greenhouse-gas emissions should be between less than half and one third of the warming seen in the upper troposphere. There is, of course, some greenhouse warming, indicated by the observed cooling of the stratosphere as less outgoing long-wave radiation reaches it. But the absence of the predicted “hot-spot” in the tropical mid-troposphere severely constrains the magnitude of the greenhouse warming.
It is worth noticing that if we considered only global temperatures, as many climatologists do, this signature of anthropogenic as distinct from natural warming would not become visible. Accordingly, the objections of Essex and McKitrick (2002) and Essex et al. (2007) to the use of globally averaged temperature are justifiable. Had we used globally averaged temperatures, it would have been almost impossible correctly to relate the underlying physics to the observations.
We shall now demonstrate that several of the atmosphere-ocean general-circulation models relied upon by the UN do indeed predict the “hot-spot” in the mid-troposphere at low latitudes that is the signature of anthropogenic “global warming”.
The computer-predicted signature of greenhouse warming
hPa – Left hand side
km – Right hand side
Zonally-averaged distribution of predicted temperature change (CCSP, 2006)
Zonally-averaged distributions of predicted temperature change in ºK at CO2 doubling (2xCO2 – control), as a function of latitude and pressure level, for four general-circulation models (Lee et al., 2007).
Predicted acceleration in the rate of temperature increase in tropical mid-troposphere in response to continuing emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases, compared with surface temperature change, generates a distinctive “hot-spot” graph that is the signature of anthropogenic as opposed to natural “global warming”. All general-circulation models show this characteristic amplification of the decadal rate of change in temperature with altitude at low latitudes, up to a factor of ~ 3 at 10 km over the equator.
All five of the computer models whose plots are shown above unmistakably predict the characteristic “hot-spot” signature that UN’s graphs show to be unique to warming of the atmosphere caused by emissions of greenhouse gases. But does observation demonstrate what the models predict?
Real-world temperatures in the upper atmosphere have been measured with balloons since at least the 1960’s and with microwave satellite sensors since 1979. However, the Hadley Centre’s plot of real-world radiosonde observations does not demonstrate the “global warming hot-spot” at all. The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record –
No “greenhouse warming” signature is observed in reality
hPa – Left hand side
km – Right hand side
No “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic “greenhouse warming” appears in the record of real-world temperature observations. Source: HadAT2 radiosonde observations, from CCSP (2006), p. 116, fig. 5.7E.
The contrast between the five computer models’ predicted signature of greenhouse warming and the Hadley Centre’s plot of observed decadal rates of change in temperature could not be starker. This astonishing result is explicitly confirmed by the UN’s 2007 assessment report, which describes the near-total absence of its own predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming in the observed temperature record, but apparently without appreciating its significance –
“18.104.22.168 Observed Changes
“… All data sets show that the global mean and tropical troposphere has warmed from 1958 to the present, with the warming trend in the troposphere slightly greater than at the surface. Since 1979, it is likely that there is slightly greater warming in the troposphere than at the surface, although uncertainties remain in observed tropospheric warming trends and whether these are greater or less than the surface trend. The range (due to different data sets) of the global mean tropospheric temperature trend since 1979 is 0.12°C to 0.19°C per decade based on satellite-based estimates (Chapter 3) compared to a range of 0.16°C to 0.18°C per decade for the global surface warming.”
Global observation of tropospheric temperatures by balloon-borne radiosondes has been available since 1958, and by satellite telemetry since 1979. Therefore there are several multi-decadal observational rate-of-temperature-change datasets that demonstrate the absence in reality of the “hot-spot” signature that the general-circulation computer models predict in theory –
No overlap between theoretical modeling and real-world observation
Model-predicted differentials between decadal rates of increase in temperature at the surface (TS) and in the lower troposphere (T2LT) from latitude 20º N – 20º S in response to anthropogenic enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect by emission of carbon dioxide and other well-mixed greenhouse gases (pink hatched rectangle) do not overlap at any point with real-world observations from RATPAC radiosondes (purple circles); HadAT2 radiosondes (green circles); University of Alabama at Huntsville satellites (blue squares); and RSS satellites (red squares). Source: CCSP (2006), Executive Summary.
Observed temperature change is less than predicted
Temperature trend-line (10–3K / decade) versus log pressure (altitude) for different zonal averages. Observations (filled symbols, solid lines): MSU, ST (Hadley), NNR, HadRT2.0 radiosondes. Models (open symbols, dotted lines): Hadley model CM3, DOE PCM, and GISS SI2000. Tropopause range is shaded. Tropopause data can be found at http://cdc.noaa.gov/. (a) Global average. All of the data sets have an average taken from 90S to 90N with exception of ST (Hadley), whose average was taken from 67.5S to 67.5N. (b) Tropics. (30S to 30N). (c) Southern Hemisphere (60S to 30S). (d) Northern Hemisphere. (30N to 60N). The tropical “hot-spot” at 300 hPa (about six miles up in the troposphere) is not significant enough to indicate a high climate sensitivity to anthropogenic enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect. . From Douglass et al. (2004).
The discrepancy between the predicted “signature” of anthropogenic greenhouse warming and its absence in half a century of observed temperature records is currently under active discussion among climatologists. A report by the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP, 2006), says –
“For longer-timescale temperature changes over 1979 to 1999, only one of four observed upper-air data sets has larger tropical warming aloft than in the surface records.” [Even this single dataset does not show enough troposphere warming to match the models’ predictions that justify the UN’s high central estimate of climate sensitivity to anthropogenic greenhouse warming]. “All model runs with surface warming over this period show amplified warming aloft. These results could arise due to errors common to all models; to significant non-climatic influences remaining within some or all of the observational data sets, leading to biased long-term trend estimates; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report (model-to-model consistency of amplification results, the large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends, and independent physical evidence supporting substantial tropospheric warming) favors the second explanation. A full resolution of this issue will require reducing the large observational uncertainties that currently exist. These uncertainties make it difficult to determine whether models still have common, fundamental errors in their representation of the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature change.”
Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation for the discrepancy between theoretical modeling and real-world observation is that the models on which the case for alarm about climate change are based are very substantially overestimating the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse warming on global temperatures. The Climate Change Science Program, however, prefers to assume that it is observation, rather than theory, that is deficient. Yet the plot of its latest synthesis of all corrections to satellite and balloon radiosonde data to date (CCSP, 2006), shown below, shows no significant difference between surface and mid-tropospheric decadal temperature trends, and indicates a trend of no more than 0.05 +/- 0.07 ºC per decade (Spencer et al, 2007):
No difference between surface and mid-troposphere trends
Vertical profiles of temperature trend in °C per decade for 1958-2004 (left) and 1979-2004 (right) as a function of altitude expressed as pressure from 1000 (surface) to 25 hPa, computed from the RATPAC (violet) and HadAT2 (green) radiosonde datasets, and based on temperature that has been averaged over the tropics, 20º N – 20º S. Filled symbols denote trends estimated to be statistically significantly different from zero (at the 5% level) (CCSP, 2006).
Further to investigate whether the tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming exists, a three-way test was developed using the Microwave Sounding Unit satellite temperature record for the atmosphere between the surface and an altitude of 5 miles, and the radiosonde record for the region between 1 mile and 5 miles above the surface. Regression lines were plotted using the online routine at www.co2science.org
Upper panel: Radiosonde temperature data for 850 to 300 hPa (1 mile to 6 miles above surface), 1979 to 2004, for latitudes 90S to 30S, 10S to 10N, and 30N to 90N. From Angell et al. (1999), updated. Lower panel: Satellite microwave sounding unit data for 0 to 400 hPa (surface to 5 miles), 1979 to 2006, for latitudes 90S to 22.5S, 20S to 20N, and 22.5N to 90N. From Christy et al. (2000), updated.
The purpose of the test was to study whether the rate of temperature change between the commencement of the satellite record in 1979 and the beginning of the 21st century was a little higher in the tropics than in the northern or southern hemispheres, as it should be if the tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” were strong enough to justify the IPCC’s chosen 3-degrees-Celsius central estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling.
First, the satellite record showed that the rate of temperature change in the tropics was lower than in either the northern or the southern hemisphere
Secondly, the radiosonde record also showed that the observed tropical rate of change in temperature was less than the northern or southern hemisphere rates of change: in fact, it showed a steep decline over the period.
Thirdly, the radiosonde record should have showed a slightly greater rate of temperature change over the period than the satellite record, since the former was closer to the altitude at which the models predict the “hot-spot” to be present than the latter. However, the satellite record shows a decline in temperatures over the period, while the radiosonde record shows an increase.
The conclusion of this three-part experiment is clear – all three of the tests fail to show any evidence of the expected differential between tropical and non-tropical rates of change in temperature, or between the tropical radiosonde and satellite readings. The tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” indeed seems to be absent.
Since theoretical modeling and real-world observation differ so markedly, and since all or nearly all observations from many sources over half a century, confirmed by our own experiment, fail to establish the model-predicted existence of the tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” signature of greenhouse warming caused by human activities, either the models or the observations or both are wrong.
Some fundamental considerations in elementary atmospheric physics, as well as some additional atmospheric measurements, suggest that it is the theoretical models that are more likely to be in error than the data from actual observations.
We established at the outset that the atmosphere and the oceans act together as a conveyor of radiant energy from the tropics toward the poles. Satellite measurements confirm that this is indeed the case –
Measurements show no increase in global greenhouse effect
Wm-2, Ranging from 90N to Equator to 90S
The Earth’s radiation balance (watts per square meter: y axis) against latitude (degrees: x axis). Latitudinal spacing is proportional to the area of the Earth’s surface between latitudes (i.e. the sine of the latitude). Upper solid curve: mean flux of solar energy reaching the outer atmosphere. Lower solid curve: mean 1974-1978 satellite-observed solar energy. Dashed curve: mean 1974-1978 satellite-observed outgoing long-wave radiation. Red: accumulated energy. Blue: the necessary energy transfer via ocean and atmosphere currents to Polar Regions to maintain mean radiation balance. Distance between solid curves: mean Earth albedo (here 25%): tropical albedo fluctuations are caused by variations in cloud cover between 10% and 40%. Source: Winston et al. (1979), vol. 2.
The observations in the above diagram, though they only cover a short period, strongly suggest that it is variations in outgoing longwave radiation in the tropics that are the principal influence on increases in global temperature, and that any increase in tropical outgoing longwave radiation will have a disproportionately large impact on temperatures in the polar regions, through transport of surplus radiative energy from the tropics to the poles by advection and other atmospheric and oceanic processes.
Therefore the disproportionately rapid observed increase in temperature at high latitudes, particularly in the northern hemisphere, is not – as has often been suggested – an indication of anthropogenic “global warming”. It is what is likely to occur regardless of the source of the warming. In particular, it will occur if there is an increase in outgoing longwave radiation in the tropics. Such an increase can occur either in response to an increase in solar activity or in response to a decrease in tropical cloud cover. Volcanic eruptions and El Nino or La Nina events can also have an effect.
A simple question arises. Does observation demonstrate that increases in outgoing longwave radiation in the tropics lead to increases in observed global temperature? The answer to that question is Yes –
Tropical outgoing longwave radiation determines global temperature
Grid spanning from 1979 through 2001
Upper figure: Tropical outgoing long-wave radiation (W m–2), 20 ºS to 20 ºN, 1979-2001, chiefly oceanic, from six satellites. Variations in tropical cloud cover, periodic El Nino and La Nina events, and short-term increases in albedo following volcanic eruptions are principal causes of changes. Lower figure: Global lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (intervals 0.2 ºC), 1979-2000. Correction analysis yields a significant linear correlation of 0.92, indicating that anomalies in outgoing long-wave radiation from the tropical oceans cause about 85% of global lower-troposphere temperature anomalies. Source: Moene (2006).
Given the startlingly close correlation between outgoing long-wave radiation in the tropics and global temperatures throughout the 30-year period of satellite observation, a correlation which atmospheric physics would lead us to expect and which is indeed observed, one question remains. Is there a similarly close correlation between atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and global temperatures? The answer is No –
No correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature
There is no correlation between the exceptionally smooth year-on-year increases in global atmospheric CO2 concentration (above) and the noticeably sharp annual changes in global temperature (previous graph). The “sawtooth” variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration (green) are chiefly caused by the seasonal exchanges of CO2 between the atmosphere and the biosphere, chiefly in the Northern Hemisphere. The multi-decadal December trend of carbon dioxide concentrations (black) shows a monotonic increase: in each succeeding year, mean CO2 concentration is higher than the previous year. The graph is exponential: the rate of increase in CO2 concentration is accelerating, albeit very slowly, as the smoothed curve (red) shows. However, the increase in global temperature arising from the additional greenhouse-gas concentrations is logarithmic and hence very small: indeed, the scientific consensus (Oreskes, 2004, IPCC, 2007) holds no more than that at least 0.25ºC of the 0.5ºC global temperature increase since 1958 is anthropogenic. Data source: Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. Missing data are omitted, not extrapolated.
Though correlation does not always imply causation, and absence of correlation does not always imply absence of causation, atmospheric physics would lead us to expect what is in fact deduced from observation: that approximately five-sixths of global temperature anomalies are attributable to variations in outgoing long-wave radiation in the tropics; that these variations owe nothing to anthropogenic “global warming”; and that increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide are comparatively insignificant. This last conclusion is supported, to some extent, by the limitations on the definition and extent of the scientific “consensus” on climate sensitivity to additional greenhouse-gas concentrations (Oreskes, 2004; IPCC 2007).
The UN’s fourth assessment report on climate change (IPCC, 2007) confirms that computer modeling predicts the existence of a unique and distinct signature or fingerprint of anthropogenic warming caused by our emissions of greenhouse gases. That signature is the instantly-recognizable tropical, mid-troposphere “hot spot” about 10km above the Earth’s surface. In the “hot spot”, the models predict that the rate of increase in atmospheric temperature, measured in degrees Celsius per decade, will be two or three times greater than at the Earth’s surface.
In IPCC (2007), this predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is clearly visible on plots of modeled greenhouse forcing and of all forcings including the dominant greenhouse forcing, but is not visible on plots of solar, volcanic, tropospheric and stratospheric ozone, or sulphate aerosol forcings. The UN’s models accordingly distinguish clearly between greenhouse warming and other climate forcings: at least five separate general-circulation computer models of the climate all predict the existence of the “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming in the tropical mid-troposphere.
Yet in the plot from the Hadley Centre’s radiosondes, showing actual, observed temperatures in the troposphere, presented in the same altitude-vs-latitude fashion as the predictions made by the five computer models, the computer models’ repeatedly-predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is entirely absent. Indeed, very nearly all observational data on mid-tropospheric temperature trends over the past half-century show no tropical “hot-spot” at all; and, in the one record that shows it at all, the magnitude of the observed effect is insufficient to justify the UN’s choice of a very high central estimate of climate sensitivity to anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect. Our own small experiment also fails to demonstrate even the existence of the “hot-spot” fingerprint of anthropogenic warming, still less a magnitude sufficient to justify the IPCC’s high climate sensitivity. These surprising results present a very real difficulty for the conventional “global warming” theory – a difficulty that is not resolved either in CCSP (2006) or in IPCC (2007).
Thorne et al. (2007) have attempted to resolve this difficulty by suggesting that the error-bars in the observational datasets are so large that they could in theory encompass the model-predicted “hot-spot”, that the datasets are not designed to identify small temperature trends, and that the outputs are exceptionally sensitive to the choice of limiting dates. However, it is on the basis of the observed data that the models are contrived, and, if the observed data are inadequate for drawing conclusions about whether the characteristic fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse warming exists, then a fortiori the outputs from theoretical models founded upon those data will be inadequate, and no conclusion about the magnitude of the temperature response to anthropogenic enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect can be legitimately drawn.
The observational and experimental graphs reproduced here contain between them a dozen different observed-temperature datasets, not one of which exhibits the “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic “greenhouse warming” that is predicted by the computer models upon which the UN so heavily relies. In every one of these datasets, the trend in the troposphere is no greater, and generally smaller, than the trend near the surface. According to Spencer et al. (2007), the tropospheric temperature trend is now 0.05 ± 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. Therefore, the contribution of the anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect to surface warming is somewhere between -0.02 and 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade, with a central estimate of 0.5 degrees Celsius, or approximately one-sixth of the UN’s central estimate of 3 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
This result is broadly consistent with that of Schwartz (2007), who supports the conclusions of Lindzen (2006), calculating by entirely different methods that the temperature increase to be expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will be one-half to one-third of the UN’s central estimate.
Can the discrepancy between prediction and observation be explained, as the CCSP suggests, by uncertainties in the observed data? The very close correlation between anomalies in tropical outgoing long-wave radiation and anomalies in global lower-troposphere temperatures, taken with the near-total absence of correlation between monotonic increases in CO2 concentration and chaotic temperature anomalies, suggests that it is the computer models, not real-world observations that are likely to be at fault. Ultimately this question can only be resolved by collecting further data: but the CCSP’s predisposition in favor of theoretical modeling and against the results of direct observation is commonplace among official climate-science bodies. Or does the discrepancy arise because the predictions are carried through to equilibrium climate response, while the observations are perforce carried only to a transient response? Professor Lindzen comments that this failure of observation to match prediction cannot be so easily explained, since the transient response would be likely to exceed the equilibrium response. He concludes that no more than about a third of the observed trend at the surface is likely to be due to greenhouse warming, and adds: “This is about as close as one ever gets to proof in climate physics.”
On this analysis, “global warming” is unlikely to be dangerous and extremely unlikely to be catastrophic.
The warming effect of greenhouse gases is less than one-tenth the UN’s central estimate.
Spencer et al. (2008, cloud albedo); Douglass (2008, tropical mid-troposphere temperature change); Lindzen & Choi (2009 in press, outgoing long-wave radiation); and Armstrong, Green & Soon (2009 in press, zero-change benchmarking of climate forecasts) empirically confirm theoretical demonstrations (Schwartz, 2007; Monckton, 2008; Monckton & Evans, 2009 in draft) that climate sensitivity – the warming effect of all greenhouse gases, not just of CO2 – is less than one-fourth of the UN’s current central estimate. A CO2 doubling would cause just 1.5 F warming, not the 5.9 F imagined by the UN.
Global warming’ is nothing new
It was 10 F warmer than today in each of the past four interglacial periods; 2-3 F warmer for most of the past 10,000 years; warmer in the Minoan, medieval, and Roman warm periods. The rate of warming is nothing new either: the warming rate equivalent to 2.9 F/century from 1975-1998, when humankind might have had a small influence, was exactly the same as the warming rates from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940 (House of Lords Written Answer, 2009).
There has been no statistically-significant ‘global warming’ for almost 15 years.
In fact, for almost eight years, on all measures, there has been global cooling at 3.4 F/century. Oceans have also been cooling ever since 3300 automated
bathythermographs were deployed in 2005. The ocean cooling definitively proves the UN wrong about “global warming”: if there were any, 80% of it would have to show up in the top 400 fathoms of the world’s oceans, but it is not happening. It follows that all recent reports that “global warming” has caused adverse weather events must be incorrect, because there has not been any. The UN’s central estimate, on its “business-as-usual” scenario, is for 6 F warming in the 21st century, but in the 30 years since accurate satellite temperatures became available in 1980 the warming rate has averaged just 2.7 F/century – less than half the UN’s prediction.
CO2 concentration is rising at less than half the UN’s predicted rate.
The UN’s central estimate is that CO2 concentration will grow exponentially to reach 836 parts per million by volume this century, but in fact it is growing
linearly towards just 575 ppm. This factor alone demands a halving of all UN temperature predictions. Methane concentration stopped rising in 2000 and has
hardly changed since.
Contrary to reports, the climate is doing just fine
– Global Sea-ice Extent A steady heartbeat for 30 years.
– Arctic Sea Ice Normal in winter, down a little in recent summers, but well within natural variability. Arctic Temperature Warmer in the 1930s and early 1940s than today. North-West Passage Amundsen sailed through it in 1903. It was also open in the mid-1940s
– Greenland Mean ice-sheet thickness grew by 2 in/yr from 1993-2003 (Johannessen et al., 2005).
– Polar Bears Population up fivefold since the 1940s.
– Antarctic Sea Ice Growing for 30 years. Antarctic Temperature Little change in 50 years. Antarctic Peninsula Ice-shelves about 1/55 the area of Texas have gone, but were not there in the Middle Ages.
– Sahara Desert Greening so fast that 300,000 km2 has become vegetated, allowing nomadic tribes to settle where they haveN’t been seen in living memory.
– Droughts and Floods Variable as usual.
– Hurricanes and OtherTropical Cyclones Lowest activity for 30 years.
– Sea Level Rising at 1 ft/century since satellite measurements began in 1993, compared with average 4 ft/century over the past 10,000 years. No sea-level rise in the last three years. UN High-end Forecast Slashed from 3ft to <2ft>
Ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility
Henry’s Law mandates that warming oceans will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere (as the UN’s own documents predict it will), making the oceans less acid. Also, more CO2 would increase calcification rates. No comprehensive, reliable measurement of worldwide oceanic acid/base balance has ever been carried out: therefore, there is no observational basis for the computer models’ guess that acidification of 0.1 pH units has occurred in recent decades.
There is no economic case for costly measures to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions.
To prevent 1 F of warming, 1-10 trillion tons of CO2 emission would have to be foregone – the equivalent of shutting down the entire US economy for 170-1700 years. The Waxman/Markey Climate Bill would cost $160 billion/year (White House estimate) and, even if implemented fully, would cool the climate by just 0.0005-0.005 F/yr. Secretary Chu’s grand plan to paint the world white would cool the climate 0.2 F at the very most, at a cost of $200 trillion.
Overtaxing & overregulating US fossil-fuel industries would increase the world carbon footprint
Not that the carbon footprint matters (see point 1). However, if the US kills its own fossil-fuel industry, US corporations and jobs will move to China and other third-world economies, where carbon emissions per unit of output are higher than in the US. China and India will not be cutting their emissions.
Originalartikel, Där är ingen global uppvärmningskris